Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard

Discussion of agenda

Agenda

Discussion of announcements

Reduced activity: 23–31 August 2009

Announcement

• Any particular reason why? And if so, why was it intentionally omitted? That seems spectacularly unhelpful. ÷seresin 07:10, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

• Does the reason matter, except inasmuch as it satisfies the curiosity of individual Wikipedians? :P AGK 16:04, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

• It wasn't intentionally omitted: it ended up on the cutting room floor by mistake. Significant numbers of arbs travelling is the main reason.  Roger Davies ^talk 07:21, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

• I volunteer to be ArbCom's stand-in while they're gone. Address all your arbitration needs to User talk:Harej during the eight days of no ArbCom. ;] —harej (talk) 07:33, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

What exactly was the vote for? - Rjd0060 (talk) 01:25, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

For some time now, all official AC decisions have been decided by vote. Paul August ☎ 03:16, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Exactly. But what was the decision here? Was Rlevse denying the other arbitrators their vacation? ;-) Rjd0060 (talk) 03:28, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Rlevse would have to answer that. But the decision is given in the text of the announcement here. Paul August ☎ 03:46, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

You're clearly missing the point which is that this level of bureaucracy looks foolish. At least that is the point I was trying to make. - Rjd0060 (talk) 03:56, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it does rather. I confess, having been away when this board came into being, that it rather amuses me. I presume it stems from the wish for greater openness about ArbComn decisions. It is self-evidently bureaucratic, but this is felt to be counterbalanced by the need to publicise which Arbitrators support what. Given that I argued for greater openness in the last election, that is certainly a good thing. But I'm not sure it really promotes that much "openness". The discussions that lead to motions, even really trivial ones like this one, remain hidden. The reasons for Arbs supporting or opposing these motions is usually unclear. Real openness would surely require moving some of the discussion of these decisions to the wiki rather than keeping them on the list. This seems a prime example of a motion where no secrecy over the discussion behind it is necessary. My hope for the future would be that ArbCom give very serious thought in each case to whether their deliberations actually need to private at all - if not, move them back to the wiki. WJBscribe (talk) 12:07, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

There has been discussion aimed at making much of the "administrative" internal discussion open and on-wiki (for motions involving sanctions where there is no need for consideration of private evidence, or no real urgency to act swiftly, we would probably use the newly-resurrected motions page). A wide-ranging discussion on what should be done off-wiki and what should be done on-wiki as regards arbitration business is long overdue. WJBscribe, if you would like to start such a discussion, that would be good (this, and much of what follows, is my personal opinion only). Timing it for after the recess, when more arbitrators are here, would probably be best.

My initial views are that the actual discussions of bans and sanctions is sometimes (often) sensitive, and there is often a need for a private space in which to be frank in discussions, normally ones where the evidence is clear, but there is disagreement on the level of sanctions. But yes, the administrative discussions and decisions could well be taken on-wiki (the discussion for internal motions usually takes place on the arbwiki, not the mailing list).

Some of the arguments against this include: the inevitable minority opposition to almost any sort of change that would distract from just taking a "working practices" decision and getting on with things; and (my argument) that the community should have primary say in the arbitration policy (the new draft of which hasn't been forgotten, and which was developed with community input) and that the committee should have the flexibility (within the limits of that policy) to change their working practices to suit different committees year-by-year (as the composition changes due to elections). If each of those sort of changes was micromanaged by the community (or the small subset of the community who take an interest in this sort of thing), then there would be a danger of placing future committees in a strait-jacket as regards changes to their working practices. Some of these working practices were unwritten, and it has helped to formalise them on the "procedures" page.

Your point about asking individual arbs what their reasons for support or opposition are, has been followed in some cases - look through the talk pages archives and you will see examples of arbs being asked their reasons and them answering - though I agree that more on-wiki vote rationales at the time of publication would help (or indeed moving on-wiki entirely, but note that even on-wiki some arbitrators don't give reasons for their votes or failures to vote).

As for the noticeboard, one of the big advantages of this is that it is a central venue where all changes and decisions are announced, allowing people to follow a single venue and also allowing a chronological view of what arbitration business has been done, and also to encourage comments at this talk page (look through the archives for examples of such discussions). Previously, decisions were archived in many different venues, and it was difficult to keep track of them all. The noticeboard proved very handy when I compiled a report on what had been done in the first half of this year. And for those like WJBscribe who have been away, the following three links to things I've mentioned above would be a good starting point if you want to comment or give feedback: January to July 2009 report, second policy draft, internal rules and procedures.

Reading the latter page reminds me that this concept of a "recess" should be added there, and that Unexpected arbitrator absence didn't get added to the procedures page. And reading the half-year report, I see that I noted that out of "88 announcements at the arbitration noticeboard", a full 16 were announcements of "changes to internal Arbitration Committee processes". Anyone can generate that list by going back through the noticeboard archives. A list of what I included in that stat will be in the fuller report, but as it is based on public on-wiki pages, I will provide that list on request if anyone asks at the discussion page for the report. Carcharoth (talk) 16:01, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

This looks like "Arbitration Committee Vacation". Mythdon (talk • contribs) 03:22, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

In Argentina [1]? Dragons flight (talk) 03:25, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

For many of us, I suppose. I know for a fact that I'll be there (I'm leading a panel on day two), and so will a number of my colleagues. — Coren ^(talk) 23:06, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Ah yes, "leading a panel". Of course that's what elected officials do in Argentina. ;) rspεεr (talk) 04:34, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Motion regarding The Rambling Man

Announcement

Arbitration motion regarding Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Everyking 3

Original announcement

Just to be clear, this restriction was originally imposed in 2005 and is now being extended to 2010. Can anyone think of another restriction that's been in place for so long without any violations? Everyking (talk) 01:34, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps, Everyking, if you had spoken in response to the motions that were on the table, as you were urged to do by many people, there may have been a different outcome. As it is, there is now a finite point at which this sanction will end, barring complications. You did not object to it, knowing that it was about to pass, so there is no reason for anyone to believe you objected. Risker (talk) 03:46, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you think I should have said. On the one hand, I was being told that it was wrong for me to appeal; on the other hand, I was being told to talk some more about it. In effect, I was being told to shut up and speak up at the same time. Everyking (talk) 04:09, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, the middle ground was chosen. As pointed out above, you now have a clear endpoint for this sanction. It will not last forever, and it won't end today either. But, unless you take some ill-considered action, it will end. Risker (talk) 04:13, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Excellent summation. Nja²⁴⁷ 06:12, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Since I've now got a full year to wait, could you or the other arbitrators suggest something for me to ponder in the meantime? The ArbCom must feel my behavior has a lot of room for improvement if it believes a year-long extension is warranted. So any suggestions for improvement would be welcome. Everyking (talk) 16:24, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

I realise that this Committee, like others before it, is frustrated by the frequency with which Everyking asks for the sanction(s) against him to be reconsidered. Personally, I think this reflects only the extent of the injustice that Everyking feels these sanctions represent. The extent that they (and now 1 last remaining one) trouble him is self evident. That the sanction has been reduced to one year is a positive step that I hope will give him some confort, but I am troubled by the addition:

"This expiration date of one year will be reset following any future unsuccessful appeals of this restriction."

Should Everyking really be punished for an unsuccessful appeal in this manner? Risker above refers to "ill-considered action", apparently this extends to having the temerity to officially object to a sanction. I remain of the view that successive Committees have treated Everyking very badly and that he has never really known where he stood. Conceptually, I can see that when someone appeals a decision they run the risk that they may be worth of after their appeal, but to have an automatic penalty for an unsuccessful appeal is a pretty dubious proposition. WJBscribe (talk) 11:45, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Everyking has filed 10 appeals and requests for clarification in the last 2-1/2 years, some verging close to vexatious ("I am allowed to edit in the same subject areas where Phil is interested?" etc.) Regardless of the merits of the argument that he "has never really known where he stood", now he knows exactly where he stands. Thatcher 12:06, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Does it matter that he has filed 10 appeals (which I don't think is accurate - some of those were filed by others)? Some of those appeals (though in short succession) have been (to some extent) successful. Indeed, this appeal, which was met by fairly hostile intially comments from Arbs that it should not have been made actually resulted in reduced sanctions. My point is mainly that having an express punishment (extension of sanctions) for someone who is unsuccessful in an appeal is Draconian and hard to justify objectively. WJBscribe (talk) 12:13, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

In some ways yes it does that he has filed 10 appeals - the remaining sanction can be viewed in a number of ways - given EK has stated he has no desire to interact with Phil, then the sanction can be construed as having no impact and hence its existence moot. Repeatedly challenging a sanction can give the impression one has not taken on board why the sanction was placed in the first place, and raises the possibility that one has not indeed moved on from the original issue (I sincerely hope I am wrong on that one EK). The current motion is a compromise as there is evidently a range of opinions on how this matter can be dealt with. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:37, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

After analyzing the whole thing, all I can say is the ArbCom should have been a little kind towards Everyking. He has done a lot of good work, and ameliorated multiple articles. I really hope that the restriction imposed on him will be lifted one day.... AdjustShift (talk) 18:26, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

WJBscribe, it might help you to understand where I stand if you realise that it was me that filed the motions that were voted on, and it was me that at least twice (at the request) asked Everyking to state on-wiki his objections to the motions, and he steadfastly refused to do so despite advice to do so on his talk page from others. In the end, Thatcher posted a good argument, and that persuaded me to change my stance somewhat. Whether my stance would have changed still further if Everyking had turned up and made a further statement after the motions had been posted, I don't know. But there is only so much time that can be devoted to one case. I gave Everyking the chance to comment at the motions after I posted them, and he didn't post there. I'm still happy to discuss those motions with him on-wiki for a brief time, but he rebuffed his chance to comment at the motions themselves, and thus pointedly passed over his chance to plead his case in the formal sense at the correct time and place (he entered the initial appeal, but then refused to say anything further, even when prompted). This kind of behaviour alone (putting aside all the past history) gave me pause for thought. I would also point out that Everyking asked Brad to explain his stance, and Brad never did so. Also, Phil Sandifer was notified, but never entered a statement. There are a lot of things being left unsaid here. I don't think that is good, but I can't require fellow arbitrators or non-restricted parties to make statements. What I can (personally) require, is that the person whose restrictions are being lifted, returns to the venue where he filed the appeal, and engages with the process after motions are filed, rather than staying away and refusing to post on-wiki. As for the number and details of appeals filed, I may provide that here to lay out the full details for those not aware of them. Finally, as to the general point, it is no more or less than an application of the principle that people should not be able to appeal at whim. Along with the option to lift the restriction entirely, I provided a simple option to limit Everyking to an appeal every year - that was rejected (though there were signs that an option based on filing only if there were grounds for appeal would have gained traction). I provided this "expiration date" option as an alternative (inspired by Dominic's comment) and added the "resetting of the appeal" clause to encourage Everyking to let this matter go and let it end quietly, and it passed. So the end result is that an expiration date has been set, and if Everyking choses to post an appeal (for example, when new arbitrators arrive in January 2010, or in six months time in February 2010), then he has to make a conscious choice between repeated appeals on a matter of principle or letting the restriction expire. It will be then be clear whether he wants the restriction to end, or whether he wants it formally lifted to make a point. Of course, the new arbitration committee may just lift his restriction, which is why I left that option in place - in other words, he is free to make new appeals, but he has to understand that repeated appeals are not free of consequences. See what I wrote at the motion itself for more on this, including my thoughts that repeated appeals should go through a preliminary phase where the appellant states why an appeal should be heard (e.g. stating what was incorrect about the initial case, or what has changed since the previous appeal), and only then, if that phase is passed, would it actually be heard. Carcharoth (talk) 19:20, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Announcement: Results of Checkuser/Oversight elections, August 2009

Announcement

Congratulations to the new appointees! Feel free to consult a seasoned CheckUser or Oversighter if you have any questions or just need a second set of eyes. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 03:44, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

While it is theoretically possible for an Arbitration Committee to appoint people who have less than 70% support, I expect that the foundation would be alarmed it if ever happened. The closest checkuser/oversight vote that I can recall is commons:Commons:Checkusers/Requests/SB Johnny. --John Vandenberg ^(chat) 05:43, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Sometime last month, I noticed checkuser and oversight weren't mentioned at Wikipedia:Elections; I've since listed them both, and have just now updated the page to reflect these new results (unless that should wait until everyone is identified and flagged, or the dust is otherwise settled). Beyond that, congratulations to all of our new and improved functionaries -- I'll look forward to working with you all. – Luna Santin (talk) 21:02, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Never seen that page before! The "Wikimedia Board" section needs updating as well. Carcharoth (talk) 22:20, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Grammatical pedantry.

Is it just me, or does "appoints the following editors as checkusers, pending identification to the Wikimedia Foundation" make little sense. I think it should be "subject to" rather than "pending" - pending would imply they are appointed now, but that will change once the condition is met, whilst I think what is intended is that they will be appointed once the condition is met.--Scott Mac (Doc) 14:13, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

No, it's not just you... WJBscribe (talk) 14:25, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

I think the problem is people with no real understanding of legalese trying to write in it (I speak as an ex-lawyer). They should either write it out long-hand or leave it to Brad.--Scott Mac (Doc) 14:42, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Did you know Brad recently used the phrase "historical excursus" and referred to "caucus" in some legal sense that escaped me. I must ask him what he meant by that. I would point out that if Brad (or other arbitrators) use legal terminology, they have a duty of care to explain them to both the community and their fellow arbitrators! :-) Carcharoth (talk) 16:06, 16 August 2009 (UTC) See also: wikt:pending

Interesting theory; however, the appointments are the appointments, and the "pending" part refers to the identification process completion and the turning on of the permissions. Theoretically, an appointment can be withdrawn after the fact should the appointee fail to complete the process; however, I hope that won't be required. I suspect as well that this may be a regional variation in the use of the terms, as this is certainly common North American usage. This isn't legalese, either, Scott, it's just plain English. Risker (talk) 14:45, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, to me it means "awaiting". I see no problem with the wording. FloNight♥♥♥ 14:51, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, whatever it is, it isn't plain - and that alone is a reason to change it. It may be that it is a regional variation, but I'm fairly familiar with these and this just seems wrong. I suspect it should say with "are appointed checkusers subject to identification being completed". Pending means "while awaiting; until" (dictionary US definition), which would mean that the condition (being appointed) was interim and ceased when the condition (being identified) was met.--Scott Mac (Doc) 14:53, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

If it is not plain then the wording can be changed. My point was to confirm that it was more likely to be a problem in that the wording reflects a regional colloquial usage rather than a non-lawyer using legalese incorrectly. Since the use of the word can change over time, additionally, the age of the person might be a factor in deciphering the meaning.

If this is the main complaint in reaction to the announcement, then I'm not alarmed. :-) FloNight♥♥♥ 15:47, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Us pedants pick up on small things when there's nothing else to complain about ;). --Scott Mac (Doc) 19:37, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Shouldn't it be "We pedants?" IronDuke 04:43, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

We could write it in faux theatre style and use an exaggerated east end/Leonard Sachs/The Good Old Days accent...."...appoints the following editors as checkusers....(drumroll.....................)" with a cymbal crash and out pops an "identified to WMF" template. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:53, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Appeals to the Ban Appeals Subcommittee: Keeblesound and Arindamp

Announcement

I'm not sure I agree with the unblocking of Mrinal Pandey (talk · contribs), but I trust the appeals subcommittee knows what they are doing. That said, I do feel it would have been a nice gester to have been contacted prior to the unblock seeing as I was the blocking administrator. Maybe that can be incorporated into the BASCs SOP? Tiptoety ^talk 17:48, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

That is a good idea and we should have thought of that. Sorry. Anyway, the unblock has some conditions so hopefully things will go smoothly. Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:51, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Arbitration motion regarding Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Date delinking

Original announcement

I am dismayed by this development. Within 24 hours of this announcement, the atmosphere at MoS and related pages has palpably changed for the worse as parties who were under restriction immediately returned to revert each other at the MoS pages and introduce aggressive rhetoric into the Talk pages. Looking here, it's already started again. Despite his pledge that he is "not planning to return for a while, even if this amendment passes", PMAnderson has already been on the Talk pages with snide remarks about regular MoS editors, calling others' opinions irrelevant, and oops, that wasn't aggressive enough, going back again to beef it up with tendentious and inflammatory. Editors (including myself) who were driven away from the MoS pages by the constant warring were finally coming back and getting some work done. I fear we are going to devolve again. --Andy Walsh (talk) 18:00, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

The amendment explicitly leaves open the potential for further amendment based on evolving circumstances; editors involved in the case would be wise to be wary of repeating past actions on new guideline topics. The amendment also reminds editors addressed by the remedy to be careful to abide by all applicable policies and to be civil when discussing other style guidelines. To me that suggests complaints of incivility or edit warring by covered editors belong at WP:AE. Nathan ^T 18:47, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I have gone out on a limb and stood up for the editors affected by this amendment based on my impression that most if not all of them understand the seriousness with which their prior behavior was viewed and that they need to behave in a civil and professional fashion going forward. As to most of them, I trust that this will be the case. If any of these editors misuse the second chance that has been given to them and lapse into chronic incivility or offensive behavior, I am going to be very disappointed and angry. Please feel free to draw this comment to the attention of anyone whom reading it may benefit. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:00, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Andy Walsh misstates what I said, which was Noetica's question is therefore when did you stop beating your wife? and irrelevant tp the issue at hand. I was asked repeatedly, "Why does a given piece of text mean X?" It means Y, which directly contradicts X, and I suggested clarifications which make it beyond doubt that it means Y. At the third repetition, the question does become tendentious, irrelevant, and inflammatory, just like the notoriously unanswerable question quoted. Doubtless the next accusation will be that I called Noetica a wife-beater</irony>; do let me know.

This is precisely the sort of attack of which Carcharoth complained at the amendment discussion. I have now answered the questions asked of me during the last few months, and responded to the current proposals on WT:MOS. I am now going to offer Noetica my support - and unless my opinion is asked, or a particularly imbecilic provision is brought to my attention, I do indeed intend to continue the experiment of seeing how MOS evolves without my help. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:38, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

• Please see also this section, also compiled in the last 24 hours, as an example of what I can do for MOS. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:18, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
• And is somebody willing to take over this effort at mediation, so I can leave without abandoning it? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:41, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for raising this Andy Walsh. I too am disappointed by the breakdown that has happened in the previous day or two (e.g. here). For PMAnderson it is not enough to make a comment as to his preferred wording (re. the original "nineteen" issue); instead, he is personalising the discussion ("prejudices of six editors", "six 'usual suspects' "), in an attempt to bully other editors as he continues his crusade of undoing the work of thousands of editors at the various MOSs (See here for PMAnderson's true agenda: e.g. "WP:MOSNUM is declared historic. It shall be tagged {{historic}} and kept protected; neither it, nor any of the material it now contains, shall be considered to have any more force than an editor's opinion, for all purposes including WP:WIAFA").
Regarding "...as an example of what I can do for MOS", yes, it is true that PMAnderson can take part (and has taken part) in rational discussion at the MOS, however for some reason it is all too easy for him not to.
 HWV258  04:01, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Thousands of editors? This current Crusade against nineteenth-century is the work of six editors, and long though it is, MOSNUM doesn't contain that many edicts. I am pleased to see that A. di M. is currently attempting to clean up the mess; but if he fails, as all before him, have failed, we should pull the plug on this swamp. It's a breeding place for controversy, and a indiscriminate mass of unsourced, uncited, arbitrary and silly edicts made up in class one day. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:59, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I was of course referring to the multitude of editors who have worked on the various MOSs at WP over the years (you have stated that you would like to see all their work marginalised). Incidentally, it hasn't been a "swamp" recently—prior to a certain event a day or two ago.  HWV258  06:34, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

That's counting thousands of editors who have singly protested some crusade; most of them have been revert-warred out of MOS by a combination of two or three Crusaders; I suppose I should be honored by attracting six. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:25, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment Thanks Andy. Probably because of the bans (which I was not aware of) I do not know these people or the history of the case, and neither am I interested. All I know is that I want a relatively stable MOSNUM. To have it constantly changing underfoot helps nobody. When it changes, as it did, more than 20 times in one day, how can an article editor expect to conform to it? I politely requested, at the MOSNUM talk page (section "Flurry of edits", that matters were sorted out in talk before making the edits, with mixed success. I have no interest in any personal conflicts here, and simply refuse to get dragged in to any, I just want a stable, and better, MOSNUM. SimonTrew (talk) 12:53, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

This entire discussion arises from an issue typical of MOSNUM, a Crusade even more useless to Wikipedia than date delinking. Because Andy and a half-dozen of his friends like to write 19th-century (the adjective), they seriously and solemnly !voted a rule that nobody may use nineteenth-century. (I'm for permitting both, myself.) Look for yourselves; I'm not making this up.

Such Crusades may be expected to continue indefinitely (unless these good souls - on this issue, Andy, HWV258, and Goodmorningworld - are outnumbered, which is unlikely to happen; it is this sort of editor who made Carcharoth too unhappy to continue with MOS); since there is always a new point on which Wikipedia should be forced to carry out this self-appointed Committee's opinions, MOSNUM will not be stable until they are banned, even if nobody opposes them. Judging from the level of improvement to MOS attained here and in the date-delinking controversy, I do not expect this turbulence to result in much improvement either.

As you will see, the discussion, Noetica aside, is also contrary to WP:CONSENSUS: Consensus discussions should always be attempts to convince others, using reasons. When a discussion breaks down to a mere polarized shouting match, there is no possibility of consensus, and the quality of the article will suffer. and a handful of editors agreeing on something does not constitute a consensus, except in the thinnest sense.

As I said some time ago, I will leave others to reform this if they can; but I do intend to ignore any rule imposed by a vocal minority not supported by general consensus or by English usage; nor I do not see that the page serves WP in any way - except I suppose to keep these editors too busy to edit content. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:36, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I shouldn't be editing content? Beyond offensive, and another display of what got you banned from the pages to begin with. --Andy Walsh (talk) 22:46, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Feel free to prove yourself more capable at that than at this specious charge, or than in attempting to reform the English language. I should like a pleasant surprise from Wikipedia. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:51, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I'll continue to work on WP as I always do. I will also disengage from conversation with you because I don't feel you capable of communicating without insulting people. I will be filing a request for enforcement later this evening to have you removed from the MoS pages again, and will inform you when I have done so. --Andy Walsh (talk) 22:56, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Shrug. Striking, in the interests of harmony - although this is an editor who believes that if we simply allow everyone to edit, we will not be a community, and who has dishonestly represented my edit here. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:17, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I feel it is important to leave the above diatribe as a permanent reminder of Pmanderson's true agenda at WP.

Regarding "...not supported by general consensus or by English usage;...". Hmmm; please note the following results:

• Google search of "nineteenth-century" results in 13,500,000 matches.
• Google search of "19th-century" returns 73,400,000 matches.
• WP search of "nineteenth-century" returns 3,911 matches.
• WP search of "19th-century" returns 10,204.

While this is not the forum for such specifics, I hope the above points out how out-of-touch PManderson is with the modern world (and WP's role in that world), and gives an inkling why he is constantly at odds with other editors at WP. It is worth noting that nowhere above was there a denial of the true agenda that I pointed out. Lastly, "...it is this sort of editor who made Carcharoth too unhappy to continue with MOS" is beneath contempt, and is bordering on actionable.

 HWV258  23:08, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I acknowledge that I would prefer not to have a manual of style, rather than have one decided by someone who determines grammatical issues by Google search - and then misreads the search. We don't have to pick one; and if thirteen million people use nineteenth-century, it is a well-established and widely-used form. One could do similar searches for color and colour - but we don't. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:17, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

(ec)My goodness—another departure from reality by an editor who cannot tolerate being shown having weakness. I didn't "determine grammatical issues by Google search" (this is a consensus-driven project, and I don't determine anything on my own). I was simply attempting to inject some reality into the discussion. It is truly bizarre to meet someone whom when demonstrated that between 2.5 and 5 times the people prefer to use one format over another, persists in the minority view. I'm used to dealing with people/editors who take more than nine minutes to consider their position when shown such weighty evidence, so I hope everyone reading this can begin to understand my distress in having to deal with someone who has such a belligerent and stubborn approach to "discussion". PMAnderson has consistently misrepresented the purpose of the various MOSs at WP (for his own stated agenda) and continues to argue (to everyone's annoyance) from that faulty basis. It is becoming tiresome and boring. In my humble opinion, PMAnderson should receive a lifetime ban from editing or commenting on any WP MOS page. That would both free him to contribute to other areas of the project (which he does well), and leave alone the people who are keen to progress in defining a worthwhile MOS for the benefit of all Wikipedians.

Indeed? What is the "purpose of the various MOS's", in your own words? Their only function appears to be to permit self-appointed Language Reformers to yell "MOS breach! this article used nineteenth-century! Change this horror or be denied FA/denied GA/have to face edit wars with meddlesome bots"; this irrelevant noise supplants all too much of FA's actual effectiveness. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:22, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

To PMAnderson: have the maturity to unwatch the various MOS pages and simply walk away. When we start to discuss issues such as "19th" versus "nineteenth", we are not interested in embarking on a discussion of the philosophy behind having a MOS. Everyone of your "contributions" to the MOS discussions reverts to your agenda-driven debate (which diverts from the basis of the original question posed by a Wikipedian—in this case Querying "nineteenth-century painting"). Surely by now you can see how pointless it is for you to devolve each and every discussion you take part in? In addition, your edits simply serve to scare away the average editor who is merely seeking clarification in many instances. If you really want to abolish/diminish/downgrade the various MOSs, then please start that debate as a separate RfC and see what sort of response you get; oh, that's right, you already have: here and here (do I need to add more text as to the outcome of those discussions?).  HWV258  00:01, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Folks, this page is not intended as a forum for debating style rules. Truly, if you feel the spirit or letter of an arbitration remedy has been violated, it belongs at WP:AE. Please don't continue your dispute here. Nathan ^T 23:33, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Nathan. And one point for Pmanderson - he said: "it is this sort of editor who made Carcharoth too unhappy to continue with MOS" - that's not true actually. I was largely unaware of the 19th/nineteenth-century dispute (though my jaw hangs open in disbelief that people can really argue over such things, I can well believe it as I have sometimes fallen into that trap). It was something to do with the date delinking dispute that made me disillusioned with MOS. To be more specific, it was actual incivility that I encountered at MOS. I have never had any problems with people politely arguing their case, even if I think the discussion is pointless, but when people get upset and start using forceful words and overblown rhetoric, that is a sure sign things are escalating. If I could change one thing about the atmosphere at MOS, it would be to add Staying mellow to the mix. Carcharoth (talk) 01:19, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

What I am attempting to avoid is the same class of editor telling some newbie to change their spelling. This will lose us editors, without benefiting the encyclopedia. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:52, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

There is a very simple solution to this which is already functional at 99% of Wikipedia's articles: treat the MOS as an essay rather than a guideline and follow any reliably published paper and ink style guide you want. Hard copy style guides are inherently superior to wiki-based style guides--if for no other reason than that they are more stable and less prone to internal squabbling. It's really outside ArbCom's remit to implement this solution (which could be spelled out in full in about three paragraphs, with provisions for wiki-specific formatting). So shall we start an RfC to deprecate the darned thing? Let's commit ourselves to content, not hyphens and ellipses. Durova³⁰⁶ 02:05, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Then I would indeed unwatch it. As long as there are bots, and as long as Language Reformers can use FA and GA to get their way, that would be a real improvement. Where do we start? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:10, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

The basic concept is this: open an RfC on the guideline status of the MoS and propose an alternate solution. The bulk of Wikipedia's internal MOS would be demoted from guideline to essay. For FAC and the few other places where such things count this would place the internal MOS on equal footing with the Chicago Manual of Style and other style guides. Editors who like the internal MOS are welcome to use it, but those who are accustomed to other established conventions are welcome to use those instead. We already have a precedent for this flexibility in the way the site handles national spellings. Elements of the internal MOS that are wiki-specific would remain at guideline level since there isn't really any replacement for them. This would cut down on many of the internal battles that have been happening at MOS, and best of all this change would facilitate expert participation in technical/academic subjects that have their own style conventions. After all, most of us care much more whether Ph.D. editors are writing articles than how they format centuries. Let's eliminate that hurdle to participation. :) Durova³⁰⁶ 02:25, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Please do. I could do with the entertainment, and (upon defeat) it would allow us to be rid of PMAnderson's agenda-based MOS edits. Bring it on. It would be nice to have one other outcome riding on the RfC: namely, that PMAnderson agree to walk away forever from the MOS (and related pages and talk pages) if the RfC is defeated (I faithfully promise never to go near a MOS-related page if the RfC mentioned above is carried.) How about it?  HWV258  02:34, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

If you promised not to go near it if the RfC was proposed or had wide support, that would tempt me; but since I don't expect this to pass on the first attempt, any more than one attempt sufficed to settle the Macedonia nuisance, that is not enough. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:10, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

• Any good publication needs a manual of style, and demoting MOSNUM to an essay does not seem at all wise to me.

  I have an alternative proposal. Too often, editors come to MOSNUM to change things in order to lend legitimacy to their particular way of doing things in articles they’re working. However, this is often done with an insufficient understanding of the ramifications. This results in edit wars and instability on MOSNUM.

  I propose that there be a gate keeper on MOSNUM. There were some nice (very nice) periods where MOSNUM was locked down due to protracted bickering over IEC prefixes and date linking. And in both cases, the admins (MZMcBride and MASEM) did fabulous jobs watching over WT:MOSNUM discussions. What about those discussions? Well, with MOSNUM locked down, suddenly there was an outbreak of peace and tranquility and awfully civil, good-faith discussion. Check out WT:MOSNUM Archive 120 to see how things worked. All MZMcBride and MASEM had to do was watch over the discussions to ascertain whether what was being proposed was uncontroversial, minor, or was significant but enjoyed a wide consensus. Then they simply copied some suggested verbiage and pasted it into place denoted by the proposing editor. Greg L (talk) 03:01, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

  • A reasonable proposal. The gatekeeper doesn't have to decide all the issues himself; he just needs the authority to impose mandatory mediation. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:29, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
• <wakes up> did someone mention that the style anarchist Pam Anderson getting personal again at MOSNUM? Quoi de neuf? ;-) It's been all peace, quiet and civility for months, and now the sniping is back. It's high time someone put a stop to his anarchist's agenda backed by stinging insults. Ohconfucius (talk) 04:16, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

• I've filed a Request for Arbitration Enforcement here, with regrets, per Nathan's advice above. --Andy Walsh (talk) 04:47, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

• Quoting PMA: The gatekeeper doesn't have to decide all the issues himself; he just needs the authority to impose mandatory mediation. That wasn’t what I was proposing. Mediation is a big, time-wasting, formal hassle. What I propose is precisely what happened twice before (and can be forensically inspected on WT:MOSNUM Archive 120); namely, MOSNUM simply stays locked and an admin gatekeeper—or pair of gatekeepers) just watches over to see if there is conflict-free changes or additions to be made. I was astonished how the past two lock-downs suddenly made all parties settle down and behave themselves. “Consensus by parties of two” and “consensus by who can make forty edits a day” is not a consensus and just makes MOSNUM unstable. Unfortunately, it seems that if there is no teacher in the room, we kindergardeners can get out of hand. Way too much time is being wasted under the current system, which breeds anarchy and where the only remedies are to start big formal ANIs, WQAs, and ArbComs. Greg L (talk) 17:53, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Well, a lot of the regulars were absent, including both of us; that doubtless helped. ;-> But as long as it has the usual tag, protection will work too. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:33, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

• Convergence of opinion: that’s good. BTW, I was indeed present throughout the period of both lock-downs and was totally unrestricted at the time as to the topics on which I could weigh in. And it was still a peaceful and harmonious place! {{insane unbelievable emoticon}} Greg L (talk) 21:52, 20 August 2009 (UTC)